by Hayley Curry

The rule of law can be a powerful and effective tool
for building a society that is free of injustice and filled with opportunities
for all, but the operational environment that accompanies human rights advocacy can limit its effectiveness. This summer, while working as a legal intern at an NGO in Kathmandu,
Nepal, I experienced these challenges firsthand.

The NGO I joined focused primarily on United Nations
conventions and other multilateral human rights agreements, particularly the
Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Woman (CEDAW). Despite having
ratified CEDAW, Nepal still maintains over 100 discriminatory laws
which influence everything from women’s ability to pass citizenship on to their
children to their ability to inherit property and study abroad.  The organization was attempting to get CEDAW provisions
into domestic law and thereby enhance the legal status of women. It conducted
the necessary empirical research on the challenges women faced, and submitted
draft proposals and bills to concerned agencies and Parliament itself.

The organization has had some success in overturning
or amending these laws, but the process of legal change in Nepal is slow-going.
Although CEDAW and other agreements express worthy sentiments and guidelines,
they are not always easily absorbed into a nation’s legal structure. A nation
can ratify them but go years without enacting laws based on them, or without
enforcing any of the laws which are enacted.  Such is the
case in Nepal.

I departed the United States this summer with the
intention of working to protect and promote the rights of the disenfranchised,
the untouchables, the refugees–those in Nepal who were unable to fight for themselves
in the court of law. While these lofty goals might have proved incredibly
ambitious even under the best of circumstances, the past year has not provided
anywhere close to good circumstances for this land-locked nation, nestled in

between China and India.

Nepal is currently operating under an Interim

Nepal is currently operating under an Interim
Constitution.  Its final Constitution was
to be enacted before May 28th, but due to extreme political
infighting and disagreement among parties, this deadline was not met. The
Maoists brought Kathmandu to a halt with a paralyzing week-long strike in early
May, and smaller strikes, skirmishes, and similar civil unrest have occurred
regularly throughout the country, disrupting and endangering life for the
citizenry.

Although an extension was granted and the
Constituent Assembly was given one more year to complete the governing
document, no further progress has been made. This lack of progress by their
elected leaders has disillusioned many Nepali people, creating doubt among some
that democracy (which has only recently taken hold post-monarchy) is the best
form of government for their country.

Moreover, the nation has been lacking a Prime
Minister since Madhav Kumar Nepal resigned in June, as per a delicate agreement
with the Maoists. Nepal has held several rounds of elections for prime minister,
but with no successful result. In this unstable political environment, the rule
of law is not particularly effective at achieving results.

Based on my observations this summer, I concluded
that for the majority of citizens, who reside outside of Kathmandu in remote
villages, it is the basic necessities of life that will make the most positive
difference–basics such as clean water, safe roads, enough food, all of which
are very scarce in many parts of the country.
The villagers may not even know–or care–what the United Nations is. They
care whether there will be a school near enough for their children to get an
education. They care whether the roads will be blockaded during yet another
political strike, prohibiting them from taking their goods to market. They care
about being able to feed their families every day, worrying whether either the
monsoon or lack of rain will destroy their crops.  Even if the laws are officially changed in
the legal ledgers in Kathmandu, there is little guarantee they will be
enforced. The police seem to readily accept bribes, making those with money and
other types of power virtually immune to punishment and still leaving women
without formal protection, regardless of legal or policy changes made by NGOs
or governmental agencies.

While women undeniably occupy a lower social status
than men in these villages (something CEDAW aims to address), I began to feel
that an all-around improvement in standard of living would best help women ease
their burdens. Through my work and travels, I observed businesses, not lawyers,
doing the most tangible good around the country. These entrepreneurs were
creating jobs, training individuals, generating revenue and giving back to
their communities. Because of them, Nepal is developing a much-needed infrastructure
and skilled workforce. Long-term, these projects hold great potential for
bettering Nepal and making life better for all of its citizens.

Thus, after a summer working in human rights law, I
am no longer convinced that law is always the best way to advance human rights.  In environments where the legal and political situations are tenuous, economic work–while not necessarily any easier than
legal work–may prove more beneficial.  A
stable government and economic development seem to me to be the cornerstones which
may ultimately make dreams of a stable, thriving Nepal a reality.

Hayley Curry is a J.D. student at University of Pennsylvania, and interned for Asia Catalyst in summer 2010.